Security Systems News - John Lombardihttp://securitysystemsnews.com/taxonomy/term/1344
enMonitoring contract provision can stand in way of salehttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/monitoring-contract-provision-can-stand-way-sale
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"> If your third-party monitoring center has a right of first refusal on your alarm company, that can impede selling it to anyone else</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-04-04T00:00:00-04:00">04/04/2012</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>LAS VEGAS—Read the fine print on your contract with your third-party monitoring center. You may find there’s a clause buried in it that says the monitoring center has the right to buy your alarm company before you can sell it to somebody else.</p>
<p>Such “right of first refusal” language is not in every monitoring contract, but it is in enough of them that Ron Davis, president and CEO of Davis Mergers and Acquisitions Group, warned potential sellers about the problem at an educational seminar at ISC West, held here last week.</p>
<p>“We are in the process of trying to expose this to the industry,” Davis said during “The Anatomy of a Transaction,” a session on buying or selling a security alarm company.</p>
<p>Davis cited a situation in which an alarm company owner was trying to sell in a hurry because of a potentially life-threatening health situation, but a right of first refusal found in the final page of his monitoring contract derailed the process just as the final sale papers were being drawn up.</p>
<p>Marc Katz, an Indianapolis attorney who specializes in sale and acquisition transactions in the industry and who was one of the panelists at the March 28 session, said the clauses are “more common than I would like to admit.”</p>
<p>He said that some third-party monitoring centers “do not point it out when you go to sign an agreement with them, and it’s really, really important because that is an impediment for you to sell.” He compared it to a bank lien that has to be resolved before a sale can close.</p>
<p>Davis said sometimes such clauses added to contracts by wholesale monitoring companies are fair, but sometimes they’re not.</p>
<p>“This is the most dishonest, dishonorable thing that any company can do, unless there is consideration,” Davis said. “In other words, if a wholesale monitoring company gives you 12 months of free monitoring but they ask for a right of first refusal, that’s legitimate. But if they just throw it in there and nobody knows it’s actually there, that’s dishonest. So be very careful if you’re monitoring with any wholesale company. Go back and look at your contract not because you want to sell today or tomorrow, but if it’s there you need to get rid of it.”</p>
<p>How does an alarm company get rid of such a restriction?</p>
<p>Katz said, “You need to go to that central station and say, ‘I’ve cut a deal with somebody. Will you waive that [clause]?’ That's the first question I would ask and if they say, ‘How much are you getting?’ then you quite frankly have to ’fess up … because otherwise they’re not going to give you that waiver and without that waiver I don’t care who you are, no buyer can touch it because it’s called an impediment.”</p>
<p>But John Lombardi, another panelist who is first vice president of the Central Station Alarm Association and president of CIA Security of Fishkill, N.Y., believes alarm companies have more clout because “central stations are a very competitive industry.”</p>
<p>He said alarm companies that have a right-of-first-refusal clause in their contracts for which they have not received any compensation, such as free monitoring, should be blunt with their monitoring companies.</p>
<p>“If you’ve been with a monitoring company for many years and you’ve paid your bills fairly and you review it [your contract] because you’re anticipating a sale, you go back and say, ‘Hey, listen, I’m out of here or you’re going to clean up this contract a little bit,’” Lombardi said.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Monitoring contract provision can stand in way of sale" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:46:46 +0000Tess Nacelewicz15326 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/monitoring-contract-provision-can-stand-way-sale#commentsKeeping central station employees in the know through extensive traininghttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/keeping-central-station-employees-know-through-extensive-training
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Many different options abound</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2011-02-10T11:01:19-05:00">02/10/2011</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Daniel Gelinas</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"><p>The <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/blog/future-article-6-e-and-national-central-station-licensing-being-discussed-now" target="_blank">controversy surrounding Article 6-E</a>—proposed legislation in New York that looks to vet and license central station employees according to statewide standards—has many in the industry talking about central station employee training. There are plenty of virtual and classroom training options provided by industry associations like CSAA and SIA. And, many monitoring companies take full control and create their own training programs for employees.</p>
<p>
Experts who spoke to <em>Security Systems News</em> seem to favor a hybrid approach, taking advantage of a variety of methods to train employees: association-sponsored training, both online and classroom; as well as in-house expertise.</p>
<p>
John Lombardi is president of Fishkill, N.Y.-based Commercial Instruments and Alarm Systems. He’s also CSAA second vice president and chairman of CSAA’s Education Committee.</p>
<p>
“Currently, the industry is going through a transformation from our traditional circuit switching technology to a significantly more sophisticated IP technology. Consequently, training is a requirement for survival,” he said.</p>
<p>
SIA’s education and training manager Kimberly Roberts believes an effective training program allows the trainer to get an ongoing assessment of a new hire’s readiness. “Training sharpens the skills of experienced operators and enforces the idea that continued growth is a job requirement,” Roberts said.</p>
<p>
“Monitoring has become much more complicated over the last 10 years,” said Mace CSSS vice president and general manager Morgan Hertel. “Without constant training you will slip behind as new technologies, new laws and new concepts emerge. It’s an ever-evolving, moving target.” Mace CSSS is a UL-listed, CSAA Five Diamond Certified central station.</p>
<p>
“There’s two things: One is to provide a positive team atmosphere right through training, and the other part is to make sure that they’re not just familiar with policies and procedures, but that they also learn about security and realize how important their job is,” Monitronics’ central station data entry director Mary Jensby said. Monitronics is one of the largest UL-listed, CSAA Five Diamond Certified third party central stations in the country.</p>
<p>
When Richmond Alarm Company moved into a much larger headquarters in 2010, the company’s training program really came into its own.</p>
<p>
“We never had a real classroom <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/richmond-alarm-consolidates-operations" target="_blank">until we moved last year</a>. So it’s been great to have that space for larger groups,” RAC president Wayne Boggs said. “We, through the State alarm association, ESA-VA, do our own training to the [Department of Criminal Justice Services] standard, so we can customize the eight hours of classroom time [the DCJS requires] to our specific needs after covering the state mandates.” Richmond Alarm Company is not a CSAA member, but is UL-listed.</p>
<p>
Everyone with whom <em>Security Systems News</em> spoke utilized classroom-learning models and if they weren’t learning in a virtual environment yet, were looking into it.</p>
<p>
“We don’t do much virtual training, though I do have that in the plan for the future,” RAC’s Boggs said.</p>
<p>
Dera DeRoche-Jolet is CFO at Alarm Monitoring Services in Monroe, La. She also is one of SIA’s national instructors from its old trainer-training course. SIA is revamping that course now, and DeRoche-Jolet will spearhead those efforts.</p>
<p>
“A virtual classroom makes a standard curriculum available on a more flexible schedule and allows a central station trainer to have access to a range of teaching tools,” DeRoche-Jolet said. “Virtual tools are particularly good for information that needs to be memorized, such as policies and procedures.”</p>
<p>
Jensby and Monitronics training coach Anne Glickstein agree each mode of training has its plusses.</p>
<p>
“My definition of CBT or virtual training is that it’s designed for the individual who is a self-motivator. Classroom training is designed more for building team atmosphere, and some people learn better that way,” Jensby said.</p>
<p>
“The other difference, too, is that which exists between training a new hire and training new upgrades to the existing staff,” Glickstein continued. “It depends on the material.”</p>
<p>
Mace’s Hertel agreed.</p>
<p>
“We use both virtual and classroom-type training, and both have their place in the industry,” Hertel said. “I don’t believe for a moment that you can take a new employee off the street and run them through a few distance learning programs and instantly you have a trained and competent dispatcher.”</p>
<p>
Everyone agreed that regardless of whether training was conducted virtually or in person, was provided by an association or designed in-house, training had to be ongoing.</p>
<p>
“We never stop training. We have weekly meetings and ongoing discussions, as there’s always something new happening,” RAC’s Boggs said. “Training is the basis of providing a quality service … Learning never stops.”</p>
<p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Keeping central station employees in the know through extensive training" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:01:19 +0000legacy_editor14402 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/keeping-central-station-employees-know-through-extensive-training#commentsProposed New York legislation causes major stirhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/proposed-new-york-legislation-causes-major-stir
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Proponents and opponents urged to attend open hearing to make their voices heard</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2011-01-20T12:54:05-05:00">01/20/2011</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Daniel Gelinas</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"><p>ALBANY, N.Y.—Proposed legislation being developed by an alarm association committee here has created such a stir that the New York Burglar &amp; Fire Alarm Association has decided to conduct an open forum discussion at its Feb. 10 board of directors meeting.</p>
<p>
The legislation in question, called Article 6-E, would require licensing of central station employees of any central station wishing to monitor alarms in the state of New York.</p>
<p>
“While the NYBFAA took numerous steps to alert the membership throughout the State of N.Y., it has become apparent that those in opposition to such legislation felt excluded from the board’s deliberations,” NYBFAA executive director Dale Eller said in an open letter to the ACCENT listserv. “Let me assure everyone that it has always been the intention of the association to seek input and comments from anyone (pro or con) regarding this proposed legislation.”</p>
<p>
<em>Security Systems News</em> <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/licensing-central-station-operators-mulled-new-york#comment-reader" target="_blank">first covered this developing story</a> in December when vocal opponent Bart Didden of USA Central Station began alerting ACCENT listserv members of the effort and the potential problems he saw. Specifically, Didden believes such legislation would kill competition from large in-state and out-of-state competitors. </p>
<p>
On the other hand, Article 6-E’s primary proponent, CIA Security president John Lombardi, who is heading up the Article 6-E Review Committee, believes the legislation would ease interstate licensing reciprocity, something he believes would be a boon to monitoring centers wanting to monitor in multiple states.</p>
<p>
Since SSN initially broke the story, others have begun voicing their concerns, claiming the legislation, if passed into law, could make monitoring in the state of New York prohibitively expensive for large, multi-site, redundant monitoring centers.</p>
<p>
“What you have now is a committee that believes in what it’s created and thinks it’s a good thing for companies in New York and for the industry. The question is, is it necessary?” said Russ MacDonnell, CEO of Rapid Response, which is based in Syracuse, N.Y. “The central station industry has evolved enormously over the last 25 years … We already do everything that’s in there times two … Technology has gotten to the point where central stations are covering wide, wide areas. More are national now … When you start piling up these licenses state-by-state, it’s incredibly burdensome to companies that try and operate between states.”</p>
<p>
Various voices on the ACCENT listserv have called out for guidance from the central station industry’s association, the Central Station Alarm Association. MacDonnell also said he felt the CSAA, which has so far remained neutral, needed to take a position.</p>
<p>
CSAA president Ed Bonifas agrees state licensing requirements are a concern for any monitoring center, but defended the association’s need to remain neutral on a state level.</p>
<p>
“The issue of conflicting state licensing requirements is a big issue. I don’t want to minimize that … It’s a serious problem that makes national monitoring almost impossible,” Bonifas said. “My argument is that the problem can’t be solved in New York. It may make sense not to perpetrate the problem in New York, but that’s one of 50 states. It’s only two percent of the problem. If you kill the issue in New York, altogether, you’ve still got 49 other states to contend with.”</p>
<p>
Mace CSSS director of central station operations Morgan Hertel conducted a poll over the ACCENT listserv to see who was in favor of and who opposed to the legislation. Hertel told <em>Security Systems News</em> that of 59 responses, 86.9 percent are opposed to Article 6-E. However, an almost equal number, 84.9 percent, are in favor of federal licensing.</p>
<p>
Bonifas said to battle the problem in any particular state would waste resources and keep the problem on a state-by-state basis when the real solution, he feels, is to be found in federal regulation.</p>
<p>
“When legitimate practitioners in a business—like the central station monitoring business—have a difference of opinion, probably the association needs to watch and not lead. The state needs to build consensus.” Bonifas said. “That being said, the broader issue is a national bill, the idea for which [former Vector president] John Murphy put forward years ago. He proposed an idea for federal legislation creating an alarm-monitoring standard by which states could evaluate us. And if you met that standard you would be allowed to monitor in 50 states.”</p>
<p>
Bonifas encouraged interested parties to get involved in the CSAA’s Long Range Planning Committee Meeting to try and build momentum for a national licensing initiative through the Alarm Industry Communications Committee. The Long Range Planning Committee Meeting is scheduled to take place in Key West Jan. 27-29.</p>
<p>
Doyle Security president John Doyle is also opposed to Article 6-E, and has been voicing his opinion to the Article 6-E review committee since October of last year, he said.</p>
<p>
“This legislation is a bad idea because there is no public need for this law whatsoever. The only purpose for licensing laws is to provide protection for consumers. There is no evidence of any kind that consumers are being harmed by central stations,” Doyle told <em>Security Systems News</em>. “Licensing laws add bureaucracy and cost to society. In this case, the proposed law would add cost to central station alarm companies, which would have to be passed on to customers with no return.”</p>
<p>
Doyle Security is a full-service security company that has been providing commercial, residential and medical alarm systems, CCTV, access control and safe and lock services and products in New York since 1919. Doyle owns and operates its own Five-Diamond certified, U.L.-listed central station, Doyle Emergency Response Center.</p>
<p>
The NYBFAA requests interested attendees of the Feb. 10 meeting RSVP so they can be added to the meeting agenda. Anyone wishing to express an opinion on Article 6-E, but who is unable to attend on Feb. 10 can submit written comments for the board of directors via mail (New York Burglar &amp; Fire Alarm Association, 234 Hudson Avenue, PMB 9401, Albany, NY 12210), email (<a href="mailto:Info@NYBFA.org">Info@NYBFA.org</a>), or fax (814-838-5127) no later than Feb. 3. The meeting will take place at ADI’s Albany, N.Y. location. </p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Proposed New York legislation causes major stir" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:54:05 +0000legacy_editor14325 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/proposed-new-york-legislation-causes-major-stir#commentsLicensing of central station operators mulled in New Yorkhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/licensing-central-station-operators-mulled-new-york
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2010-12-02T12:32:01-05:00">12/02/2010</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Daniel Gelinas</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"><p>ALBANY, N.Y.—There’s legislation in the works here that, if passed, would require all New York central station operators to be licensed. Some industry insiders, such as CIA Security president John Lombardi, believe there’s merit in this type of legislation. But others, including Bart Didden of USA Central Station, believe this legislation is a bad idea.</p>
<p>
The proposed legislation, called Article 6-E, first appeared last fall. It was developed by outgoing New York Sen. Brian Foley and the 6-E Legislative Review Committee—which included Lombardi, Electronix Systems’ president Ron Petrarca, Amherst Alarm CEO Tim Creenan, Alarm Tech Central Service president Robert Spetta, and All Star Electronic Systems vice president Richard Talbot.</p>
<p>
Foley’s deputy chief of staff Krystyna Baumgartner explained to <em>Security Systems News</em> that Foley “was approached by a local security industry group in September or October of last year with [the idea for this legislation.]” She said Foley was given “the final language that they wanted in August of this year, but the [legislative] session was already over for us, so it wasn’t something that was ever formalized.”</p>
<p>
Lombardi said <a href="http://www.nybfa.org/pdf/6E%5B11%5DDefinitions.pdf" target="_blank">the current version of 6-E</a> develops model legislation that builds a foundation for other states faced with similar issues of vetting central station employees. Licensing of central stations in New York would go a long way toward achieving reciprocity with the 17 other states that have similar licensing legislation in place, he said.</p>
<p>
The CSAA has a <a href="http://www.csaaul.org/CSAALIC1.htm" target="_blank">licensing reciprocity standard</a> for alarm monitoring organizations that aims to aid government bodies in developing reciprocity-friendly licensing requirements.</p>
<p>
Bart Didden has been a vocal critic of the 6-E Legislative Review Committee's work.</p>
<p>
“This is trying to regulate central station companies,” he said. “The participants in this non-inclusive committee are under a complete falsehood if they think they’ve created something that will overcome other states’ apprehension to reciprocity … If it was their intention to create something that would benefit the industry, you’d think they would have called Rapid or Affiliated or Nationwide or USA, which are the predominant contract central stations in New York State, but they didn’t include any of those.”</p>
<p>
In response to critics of the committee’s efforts, Lombardi said he was unconcerned.</p>
<p>
“This proposed legislation has been around since January. It was introduced to the associations in March,” Lombardi said. “In May or June it was posted on our web site for the whole world to see and the total feedback we got back was ‘We don’t want more regulation in our lives.’”</p>
<p>
Didden said there have been opponents to the push to get Article 6-E championed in the New York Senate.</p>
<p>
“They have gotten input that they did not want to hear,” Didden said. “I have voiced my opinion numerous times and they don’t like it, so they’ve chosen to ignore it. I think they’re just trying to regulate competition by creating additional, artificial business barriers.”</p>
<p>
So what’s in store for 6-E going forward?</p>
<p>
Well, its legislative champion in Albany, Sen. Foley, was not reelected in November. An aide to Foley said Foley’s successor may or may not choose to take up any one of Foley’s causes or the 6-E Review Committee could attempt to move on to other possibilities.</p>
<p>
Lombardi said he’s amazed “that we had someone pushing this and working with us and no one in the industry was interested. Now that proponent is gone and we’re fighting a battle that may never come to pass.” </p>
<p>
Right now, said Lombardi, “what we’ve got is a model law that we think is good, but we don’t have a champion.” </p>
<p>
So, 6-E’s future in Albany is uncertain, but Lombardi will be talking about 6-E to an industry group in Washington next week. Lombardi said he’s accepted an invitation from the Alarm Industry Communications Committee to give an informational presentation on Article 6-E at its Dec. 7 meeting.</p>
<p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Licensing of central station operators mulled in New York" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:32:01 +0000legacy_editor14204 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/licensing-central-station-operators-mulled-new-york#comments